A suit challenging a sale deed on the grounds of boundary relevance is barred by limitation if filed long after the deed's registration, with the plaintiff lacking standing due to the non-existence of the property in question.

JUDGMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the decree and Judgment passed in AS.No.247 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The Appellant is the defendant in the main suit. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the main suit for the relief of declaration declaring that the sale deed dated 13.07.1990 registered at Doc.No.4829 of 1990 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Anna Nagar, insofar as the description of the western side boundary mentioned as West Mada street is concerned, as illegal, unlawful and non-est in the eye of law and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property by the plaintiffs.

3. The Trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendant has preferred Appeal Suit before the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.247 of 2014 and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal by confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court, thereby the present second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant.

4. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will be referred as plaintiff and the defendant as referred before the trial court.

5. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff is a temple situated in the land measuring to the extent of land in S.No.11A/7B 2 of Villivakkam Village, Perambur, Purasaiwakkam Taluk, to an extent of 4.5 cents. The Revenue Authorities have granted SLR and Assignment Patta by the Special Tahsildar (Assignment) Saidapet, as early as on 20.05.1974 in favour of the plaintiff temple for the suit property and the Special Officer Settlements has also issued Enjoyment Certificate dated 26.04.1986 for the purpose of getting building plan approval from the Corporation of Chennai and CMDA. The plaintiff temple has also obtained an electricity connection in the year 1967 and continuously paying electricity consumption charges to the Department.

5.1. While so, the Agattheeswarar Devasthanam temple is also situated on the southern side of the suit property and the said temple owns vast extent of land. The temple administration of the Agatheeswarar Devasthanam divided the land and converted into plots and granted long lease to various persons. Insofar as the plot in S.No.11A/7B2 is concerned, a long lease was executed by the Agatheeswarar Devasthanam in favour of one Appadurai Mudali, Periyanayagi Ammal on 20.08.1912 through a registered document. The said Appadurai Mudali and Periyanayagi Ammal mortgaged the building with lease hold rights to one Rawthammal Sowr. Thereafter, in respect of the said mortgage, he has filed the suit in OS.No.913 of 1917 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee and the same was decreed.

5.2. Due to the non-payment of the mortgage amount, the said suit was executed through EP.No.872 of 2018 and the property was sold through court auction on 24.10.2019. The said Rawthammal Sowcar conveyed the leasehold rights and the superstructure in favour one Angayarkannammal. Thereafter, her son Masilamani Mudaliar conveyed the superstructure with the leasehold rights over the land in favour of one Gajalakshmi Ammal with an extent of 2622 sq.ft through registered sale deed dated 07.03.1977.

5.3. The four boundaries shown in the abovesaid documents would clearly show that the plaintiff temple is situated to the western side of that property. The said Gajalakshmi Ammal sold her property to the defendant in the year 1990. After purchase of the property, the d